Butterflies accumulate static electricity to attract pollen without contact
bristol.ac.uk
bristol.ac.uk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive
The toy model of this that fits in my head, is the prisoners' dilemma as a gene: every generation has a local preference for that gene, but overall it destroys that population.
Ages ago now, and I think it's been debunked anyway, people were looking for a "gay gene" and wondering how it might remain in a population; one suggestion was that it would cause hypersexual andro-philia, making both men and women with that gene very much more into guys than normal — if that actually existed in that particular form, then (modulo both contraceptives for the women, and sperm banks for gay men who want to start a family) it would count as such.
She tastes like the real thing
My fake plastic love
> electrostatic air cleaners, perhaps solar powered
AKA trees.
I presume, if such a phenomenon was possible, that it would work the same way electric eels work: by electrochemical (dis)charge. You don't need the whole organism to be ionized relative to its medium; you just need to form an ionic gradient at the surface of the organism, by using active metabolic processes (ion pumps) to hold ions — and thus electric charge — on the "wrong" side of a membrane.
Of course, electrochemical flux is an active process that takes work; it's not something any organism can do constantly forever. I imagine a tree that (hypothetically) did this, would only do it as a periodic "tug", maybe once a minute or so — sort of like taking a breath. Its evolutionary goal behind evolving such a feature, would presumably be to just to catch enough pollen, not all of it, and even a low-duty-cycle pull would work toward that goal.
Note that the ability of a thing to create an electrical discharge, is inextricable from the ability of the same thing to induce electrostatic forces on charged particles. Electric eels move charged particles in the water as they discharge into the water. And a tree that charged itself up to act as an ionic air-purifier, would (probably lightly) "zap" anything that touched it.
---
Alternately, if we let go of the constraint that this is something all trees supposedly did, and instead assumed that this was something only some specific trees did — then those trees could do it by growing some electrically-insulated — and so likely dead-matter — tissue, near each pollen receiving organ (pistil). In other words, the tree's flower petals could act like mammalian hair does: able to be charged up with static even when the animal themselves is grounded. (And then they might not even need explicit charging — just interacting with the air while being electrically insulated from the rest of the always-grounded tree around them, might be enough to leave them with a slight constant charge.)
Yes, this isn't "sexism" and no the female trees wouldn't hoover up all of the pollen produced...but it still a problematic practice.
There are plenty of scientific studies that go into the electrodynamics of flowers, it's not a myth that they also can become electrically charged. See here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00359-017-1176-6#...
Most probably also on other parts of the body, but I dont sense it. Sometimes its so much I walk any narrower parts with my hands in the air in front of me, but I still often get bits on my face.
“This means that they don’t even need to touch flowers in order to pollinate them,"
So, the butterflies build up the charge as the fly around. Then they get near a flower and the pollen flies up and sticks to the butterfly. How does this pollinate other flowers? The pollen is stuck to the butterfly and not the flowers. Also, it seams it would mostly stick to the wings.
Just curios. It is a pretty amazing world around us.
„This pollen can then be deposited on subsequently visited flowers, either by direct contact, or similarly through electrostatic attraction, because the pollen can equalize to the potential of the pollinator, and will then experience an attractive force towards the electric field of the flower. Experimental evidence demonstrates this bidirectional electrostatic pollen transfer.“
[0] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2024.015...
(i am guilty of this too lol)
Now, though, I am interested in the electrostatic properties of the flowers.
On the other hand, if the butterfly is eating the nectar and the pollination is an ancillary effect, then you have to start invoking more complicated mechanisms. Maybe successful pollination of the plants increases the food supply later? Maybe the flowers are not neutrally charged, but instead become oppositely charged when the pollen is ready to bias pollinators to come close at appropriate times? You can always construct some just-so story that fits the observed evidence, but where it becomes science is when you make predictions and test them.
On the other hand, the bees collect both nectar and pollen. Nectar to provide energy for themselves (which they dehydrate into honey, which can be stored for a long time, unlike fresh nectar), and pollen, which is rich in proteins, to feed their larvae, which need to grow into adults.
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12804 (cited in the paper this post is about)
From another citation:
> The mechanism by which bees gain their charge, however, is not well understood.
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00359-017-1176-6#...
Apparently this happens to planes and helicopters too (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/november/f...).
Does doesn't really explain how it happens, it just names it.
EDIT just found this on Wikipedia
> The details of how and why tribocharging occurs are not established science as of 2023.
So don't talk to me like you know anything. Knowing the name for the thing is not knowing the thing.
In related news, things are using capillary action to draw up water! Amazing!